ACTA on life support as key EU committee rejects it

The full European Parliament is now expected to reject the treaty next month.

The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) has been facing an uphill battle since protests against the treaty broke out across Europe earlier this year. Three different committees of the European Parliament recommended rejection of the treaty last month.

Now the fourth—and final—committee to consider the treaty has rejected it by a 19-12 vote, giving opponents strong momentum going into next month's decisive vote of the full European Parliament. The trade committee's vote is considered crucial because it has formal jurisdiction over trade agreements like ACTA.

Last year, ACTA looked almost unstoppable. Negotiated in secret, it was signed by President Obama last year with little fanfare and was expected to win approval easily in Europe. But protests against America's Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) inspired parallel protests against ACTA in Europe, causing several countries to express reservations about the treaty.

"This was not an anti-intellectual property vote," said ACTA rapporteur David Martin after the vote, according to the BBC. "This group believes Europe does have to protect its intellectual property but ACTA was too vague a document."

If, as expected, the full European Parliament rejects the treaty next month, it will be effectively dead in Europe. And that would essentially neuter the treaty worldwide.

ACTA was never going to require significant changes to US or EU laws. Rather, its primary function was to codify US- and EU-style copyright laws as a global standard, then pressure smaller, less developed countries to adopt those same policies. But without European ratification, it will be much harder to portray ACTA as an international standard.

Its difficult to win a fight by defending, and I worry that unless the opponents of these treaties such as the telecos and big tech sites attempt to seize the momentum with some reasoned suggestions then eventually the MAFIAA backers of these treaties will win by eroding the public's interest in this legislation with iteration after iteration.

We've avoided their blows, and they're off balance, now's the time to land a knock out punch.

Its difficult to win a fight by defending, and I worry that unless the opponents of these treaties such as the telecos and big tech sites attempt to seize the momentum with some reasoned suggestions then eventually the MAFIAA backers of these treaties will win by eroding the public's interest in this legislation with iteration after iteration.

We've avoided their blows, and they're off balance, now's the time to land a knock out punch.

+ a bazillion!

Ninhalem wrote:

Now all we need in the US is for Congress to challenge President Obama on his explanation of why he could pass a treaty without Congress' approval.

In response to your query, I shall repeat the words of a famous Saturday Night Philosopher:

If we could pass a law that all treaties must be negotiated with parliamentary/congressional oversight, we would have such a healthier democracy. I'm sick of western propaganda about democratic principles lecturing China, North Korea, etc., when our own democracies are basically cuckolded by large corporate interests (on all fronts, not just IP/copyright).

Four different committees rejected it and the parliament could still wave it through? That's Belgium level of idiot governance.

The committees don't have any jurisdictional powers over it, they just recommended that it should be rejected which the EP should take into consideration. Also considering that they're the only publicly elected institution of the EU, why would you be against them voting over it (ok, yeah I can think of several reasons, but it's still a good thing)

I'm happy that the EU is going to reject this. I only hope they have the same reaction when the next version is inevitably pushed on them by the US.

+1My thoughts too.And for those who do dislike the MAFIAA and their meddling in Politics and their greedy ripoff ways you had best be Boycotting them and not contributing a dollar towards them.Save your money and Buy Local Art,Support INDIE, and check out kickstarter and other websites like kickstarter.

Its difficult to win a fight by defending, ...We've avoided their blows, and they're off balance, now's the time to land a knock out punch.

Bengie25 wrote:

Pass a bill/law/etc that defines customer digital rights that my not ever be questioned, limited, or signed-away.

You both really nailed it. Sadly, it's too late, because our governments, that we wish would have served us by enacting wise laws to benefit the public good, no longer do our bidding (well, that's not true for 1% of us, but 99% is close enough for my statement to hold). No, sadly we have no representatives any more, just corporate overlords and their public servant lackeys.

So with all due respect, I suggest a lot of well aimed Molotov cocktails be added into the mix. Corporate mafia seem glad to legislate fear into our peon lives, lest any of us dare to deprive them of a few dollars profit here or there. I suggest we reciprocate on a scale that will make them more willing to negotiate in good faith. Or maybe even realize that earning an honest living is preferable to running an extortion racket.

Admit it, we all know the racket here, "iteration after iteration." Do We The People allow ourselves to inevitably lose every time, to always be scammed into nickel and dime slavery, or do we finally wake up and fucking end this greedy scamming bullshit? The era of true cooperation and equality is too long overdue good people. We ought to know that by now. Or are we really just poorly wired monkeys doomed to extinction by letting all the worst decisions stand as law in the end?

Now all we need in the US is for Congress to challenge President Obama on his explanation of why he could pass a treaty without Congress' approval.

Presidents can agree to treaties all they want (and historically, have done so), they just have no force of law if they're not ratified by Congress.

President Obama is no different on that than others have been historically.

Actually President Obama is claiming that the treaty doesn't need to be ratified since it requires no changes to existing law, so instead of sending it to Congress he is dubbing it an executive agreement that does need to be ratified to take effect. Given that this treaty does not affect current U.S. law, and given that while it technically obliges us not to change a subset of these laws the Supreme Court has ruled that Congress can break treaties with a simple vote, legally we are in a spot that is no different than before. The only difference that the ratification status of the treaty makes is A) whether this means that the portions of the treaty that required X number of members to ratify it come into force for the *other* signatories who do have to change their laws and B) whether other countries will view us as having broken our commitments if at some point in the future we just ignore this treaty and change our laws in such a way that violates it.

So anyway, in my opinion Obama *is* being out of line, but in a subtle way: it's not that he is magically introducing all sorts of laws that we have to follow without getting Congress's approval, it's that he is telling other countries that they should act as if we have ratified the treaty even though we haven't; Obama simply doesn't have the power to make an official declaration that the U.S. is committing itself to the obligations of a treaty regardless of whether doing this would have an impact on U.S. law or not.

Its difficult to win a fight by defending, and I worry that unless the opponents of these treaties such as the telecos and big tech sites attempt to seize the momentum with some reasoned suggestions then eventually the MAFIAA backers of these treaties will win by eroding the public's interest in this legislation with iteration after iteration.

We've avoided their blows, and they're off balance, now's the time to land a knock out punch.

So the unstoppable force of the Internet meets the immoveable object, of interest vested in content for sale.

There isn't likely to be a knockout punch anytime soon in relation to the conflict of interest between these 2 industry sectors. Until the Internet itself is seen as the knockout punch. Increasingly we are likely to be seeing Internet industry interests mobilising public opposition to extreme copyright effectively, as with the successful campaign against SOPA etc. So maybe this war has turned, in which case eventually the increasingly bankrupt content industry will realise they are wasting their lobbying money, and will try to find some accomodation, e.g. by obtaining monetary recognition as a sales commission, in the sense that their content increases the value of the Net, encouraging users to pay more for fatter pipes. This should only be acceptable in exchange for some degree of legitimisation of private use of content so taxed.

Four different committees rejected it and the parliament could still wave it through? That's Belgium level of idiot governance.

Only a few years ago it was the other way around. The MEPs were just a (optional) rubber stamp to make it look democratic. They figured we were not buying it, and since bribery is almost open (they don't even dress it up as campaign donations like our friends from over the pond) the various interests still get the result they want and this way claim its real democracy...

The point they haven't figured out yet is we no longer need the vast numbers of committees like this one any more, then again its only our money and they wouldn't want the gravy train to end...

Timothy B. Lee / Timothy covers tech policy for Ars, with a particular focus on patent and copyright law, privacy, free speech, and open government. His writing has appeared in Slate, Reason, Wired, and the New York Times.